Has anyone else noticed that Anne does not use one type of English?
Sometimes she uses American words and spelling and other times she uses v. english words like Jam in P in S rather than the American jelly?

Edith are you reading UK or US versions of the books? While you might well be right, if you're either reading UK versions or a mix of both, then I'm not surprised you notice things like this, as the UK editors could quite possibly have changed some of the typical Americanisms to British equivalents, but not all of them. I've never heard of this before with Anne, but then I've never gone looking for it myself or seen anyone else do an analysis.

I do know that with the Harry Potter books, the US editions have been have a lot of the British words and phrases watered down or replaced, especially in the earlier books. So it's not unheard of that this could happen in reverse with Anne's books.

Don't think I ever really noticed either. But then I'm pretty sure all of mine are US editions. The one time I was in England was before I even started reading Anne, and we were only there two weeks anyway.

Tresa

__________________
Thinking, understanding, reasoning, willing, call not these
Soul! They are its actions, but they are not its essence.

How much say does the publisher have in what finally appears anyway?
I have been very surprised to be finding little inconsistencies in the books - sentences left out in the middle of a paragraph - makes SUCH a problem when you're making trivia! - but also so apparantely unnecessary
To say nothing of the book covers!!

__________________Coffee: Chocolate: Men: Some things are just better rich

Publishers do have a lot of say. I'm not sure if Anne writes American or UK English these days, but in general the UK editions contain more of Anne's original writing than the more edited American ones.

It's odd how exposure changes your outlook. I definitely still speak with a British accent, but my spelling's become American, despite being taught to spell the British way in school (and living in the UK when I was 12-13 years old).

__________________Decaf coffee is an oxymoron. Instant coffee is an abomination. Give me the real thing and nobody gets hurt.
"Do. Or do not. There is no try" -- Yoda
VP of the Afra Lyon fan club!

In some ways my spelling has orientated towards England more than America, partly in reaction from the cultural dominence of America. I am strongly Anglophiliac, after my native patriotism, so that doesn't come as a distinct surpise to me.

the spelling is very American, though it can be mixed but some of the words are very English. I don't think it's age cos I don't think other authors of her generation did that! Perhaps it is Irish, but as far as I can remember don't they have a slightly different English again?

Perhaps, in certain genres the concept of linguistic integrity is either not as rigourously adhered to, or else the concept that the immediate recontextualisation of the work within the new sphere of marketing, in order to boost sales, since, presumably, American audiences would react more positively to the American dialects, rathen than English or other dialects, are the overriding causes of the decision to change the language of Anne's books, unless there is another possibility, that of the publishers' use of a style-sheet that precludes other linguistic strategies in certain cases.

That is: certain genres aren't important enough to stay the same. Americans prefer American English. Or the publishers prefer certain words and phrases in all their books.

If possible, could those with the US and UK editions note the relative frequency of '-ise' versus '-ize', as this may help us gain a concept of whether Anne is predominantly an American English or UK English writer.

Uh...unless your US Harry Potter editions have them "revising" for exams and recieving their class "timetables", they have been changed. If they do, check the cover, you have the UK edition. Things where UK and US English part company to the point it could be confusing are changed. There aren't usually any more major changes like Dean Thomas suddenly becoming "a Black boy" in the US version of HPSS, and I noticed that a "jumper" snuck through in the US version of HPHBP (in the US, "jumper" is a sleeveless dress worn by girls, in the UK, it's what we'd call a sweater worn by either gender), but they still change some vocab, and the spelling (those extraneous unpronounced "u"s in words like "neighbor" and "color" disappear.)

And of course there's the biggest change of all--in the UK and overseas editions, the first book is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

Interesting about Harry Potter. I'm currently more interested in seeing how Anne is treated, as that's more germane to my current interests.

Is it possible to get a list of books that were published prior to the shift to Ireland? It would help, possibly, to compare their treatment among the two main markets, in juxtaposition to the post-shift books.

Uh, well, since Edith brought up Harry Potter, I decided to talk about that. It's called "topic drift." It may surprise you, ghyle, but not EVERY comment here is directed at you. You started the thread. You don't own it.

It's pretty easy, if you have "Dragonholder", to figure out when Anne moved to Ireland. Then it just takes looking at the publication dates on books, which involves some typing on Amazon. Why do I have the feeling, with all these threads, you're just looking to get people to do research for you?

Dearest Anareth, naturally, I understand your point about topic drift. And just as naturally, I have an equal right to enunciate my concerns as well.

Since you have directed your attention upon me, may I consider the following? Being considerate to be open as I try to be about my current concerns, which could easily be ignored if one so wishes, it is possible (no?) to acknowledge the interests and concerns of others, in howsoever an offhanded manner as deemed suitable within an exact circumstance, at a given time, and yet to conduct, in the manner of a counterpoint, to whatsoever shifts in topics there may be, as conducted by other and equal participants within a multivocal converstaion, no?

So that, if I wished to avoid the pointlessness of countering any such objections caused by the forthright expression of my concerns, by the equally valid observation that such lend themselves easily to observations of a, how shall I say, hypocrisy in essentia , thus rendering said objections as nugatory an exercise as the grossest calamities of any pointlessness.

"Is it possible..." -- a closed question. All that is needed is 'yes' or 'no'. Is that the extent of the research which I seem to require?

If yes, it is my work to look at such a list; if no, it is up to me to construct said list. That, dear Anareth, is the research which I apparently expect others to conduct. Will you be so kind as to fulfil my, how shall I say, onerous desires?

And. by the way, dear Anareth, please remind me when I asked anyone here to construct a bibliography of Clark Ashton Smith, H. P. Lovecraft, or Christopher Brennan, or a bibliography of almost 5000 items by or relating to Arthur Machen, not to mention a similar one of Brennan, or numerous essays, including the most comprehensive one on Lovecraft's poetry, not to mention books upon H. P. Lovecraft's aesthetic thought, the poetic circle of H. P. Lovecraft, and Clark Ashton Smith as a poet, while I swan about posting 24-7 here?

*Dear* ghyle, and I hope you note the dripping sarcasm, all I see here (and by here I mean the board) is you apparently wanting other posters to do your research for you by asking oblique academic questions which require a great deal of thought and analysis on their part to answer effectively, far more than the subject matter in question really deserves.

And since these are not boards devoted to Lovecraft et al, I can't find it surprising you haven't asked anyone to do your analyzing and research on those topics for you. But your exageration (I hope to God it's exageration) of "24-7" aside, one presumes this isn't the only place you visit. I don't know what you're doing anywhere else. Besides apparently writing an awful lot of poetry.

Ghyle, you should visit my McCaffrey site, mccaffrey.srellim.org. It includes a bibliography arranged by publication order as well as a biographical timeline of Anne's life, which together will give you the answer you want about which books were published when she lived where. From memory I believe the first book published after she moved to Ireland was Dragonquest, but I'm not positive.

I brought up Harry Potter originally; I'm very good at causing topic drift, as I'm very fond of exploring tangents. It's relevant to learn more about US UK variations on a general basis, but as different publishers are involved and the change is from American to British English rather than the reverse, it doesn't answer specifics about how Anne's books are changed.

I suspect that unlike foreign language editions, wherein they take the published book and then translate it, that for US and UK books the publishers each receive the same draft of the book from Anne and then the editors go to work making changes, tweaking the writing style in addition to Anglicizing the spelling for the UK edition. I'm pretty sure Anne still writes with American spellings (somewhere I have a couples drafts of recent short stories which would answer that question, but I'm not sure where...), though I wouldn't be surprised if British/Irish expressions and language usage difference (like jumper as mentioned above) have crept in to a certain extent. Anne is still very much an American despite her many years as a resident of Ireland now.

Thank you Cheryl, for both the bibliography and reference to the date.

If we can agree that Restoree, Dragonflight, The Ship who Sang, and Decision at Doona all predate the move, then, when I analyse the amount of British spellings within British editions of these novels, which I can, given the historical division of territories for copyright purposes, I can make a case that these books have been edited for the UK market. We already know from other refences and reports that other books have textual variations between the US and UK editions. By arguing that this level of editing predates the move, then it would make more unlikely a change, gradual or otherwise in Anne's linguistic strategies. It could also be seen as evidence of a like treatment of other American authors, no?

found another inconsistency its pants in P in S (A US word unless Ryssa is in the habit of wandering about in her underwear!)
but It's trousers well trous in I think Dsinger! and trousers in DDrums (i just checked) thats the UK word. hang on I've got two dif versions of PinS one's UK corgi and t'other seems to be some sorta bookclub one! I'm gonna cross reference.

oh and Anareth I started the thread. HP was brought in not cos its OT but its a comparable case study Gyle.

I agree that it's evidence of the practice in the US, which I find actually disturbing (for which reasons see below). I wonder if the same occurs in the UK, which is what I want to check out, if that's no problem.

Why it disturbs me is that it sends three clear messages. First, we don't respect you, the author, because we will change your work. Second, we do not respect your dialect, your culture, your people. Third, we do not respect your readers, who have the right to expect a clear, authoratative text, not something that has been edited to reflect the publishers' wishes. The practice may be good for business, but to me, as a writer and human being, I find it abhorrent.

I hope that you will understand my emotive response, and pardon any excesses caused.

I don't think it's disrespectful at all, either to change spellings to local usage or to change terminology to local usage -- unless the author makes a big deal over the terms she/he did use (which is more likely in scifi as they like to create vocab, or at least new uses for old words). It seems entirely different than translating a book into an entirely different language, but as far as I'm concerned it's not that different. You

That said, there are those of us readers who don't always want to read the translated version. With Harry Potter a lot of American fans have wished to at least have fewer changes if not simply read the full British version, as the British-ness is an integral part of the tale. For sci-fi, the American- or British-ness of a story is unlikely to be integral, but the die hard reader may wish to get his/her hands on the original translation.

This would be an excellent question to pose to Jody Lynn Nye for her opinions - as I think only an author is perhaps best qualified to state whether she finds this an offensive practice or perfectly understanble and legitimate.

I think that converting certain phrases and words is a good idea, to ensure that what the author intended to be understood, is understood. Such as changing American-isms and British-isms so as to be understood easily and correctly by the reader. Especially since the same words can have completely different connotations in different areas.

Changing the spelling for publishing in different countries, especially with the u's ignored in America, makes a lot of sense to me, as I know I find it harder to read through with these Americanisms in place, and I would expect that many Americans feel the same about the proper spellings.

That said, I think that no more should be changed than actually necessary, to ensure that what is published is what the author wrote, not what the editor wanted it to be.

In the last couple of Harry Potter books, there have been a lot more "Britishisms". Mrs. Weasley still knits sweaters, not jumpers, but they have timetables, not schedules; lemon drops are now lemon sherbets. Can't remember any others... I would definitely like to read the UK versions, though.

True Bendra, and that's what I've heard reported, that in part response to pressure from US fans, the US publisher is letting each book stay more and more British.

It's not as simple as abiding by the author's wishes - the publisher is one that goes to the expense of printing, binding, and shelving books in the stores. That's a big investment on their part, and it give them some say in things like this. They have to be sure it's worth their investment, and they presumably have a much better idea of what will sell in a given market than the author. It would be all well and good for an author to throw a fit and say it has to be edited my way, but if the publisher disagrees, then the book won't see print. Not that the publisher is always right (we know they make horrendous choices in cover art at times!), but they certainly have the right to make such decisions.

What if a US publisher entirely 'Americanised' Shakespeare, and insisted upon that as the base text to be used in all US editions. What would your reaction be?

Myself, I would be outraged. Not because the author's wishes aren't respected, so much as the text itself is altered.

Any alteration of the text alters its meaning.

If I say *rse, for example, I don't want it changed to *ss for two reasons: I want the text to keep the sound patterns that it has developed, that it is, I want it to be phonologically accurate, and I want the poem to reflect and be proud of the dialect that it has been written in.

My chief wish, as a writer, is for textual accuracy in my poetry. My fiction, well, so what. That's just for pleasure. It doesn't matter. But my verse, on the other hand....

Ah, but poetry and prose are entirely different kettles of fish, and nothing at all has been said here about what editors might or might not do to poetry. It's known that the word choice in poetry is generally very precise and I can't imagine a publisher altering them without consultation with the author.

What if a US publisher entirely 'Americanised' Shakespeare, and insisted upon that as the base text to be used in all US editions. What would your reaction be?

It would depend how they Americanised it. If it was only the spelling, then that would make little difference. But remember - most of the 'Shakespeare' we read anywhere has been edited, often quite severley, to make it understandable to the modern mind. This is especially true in school editions, where to be honest, most people read most of the Shakespeare that are are ever going to.

Editing of plays such as Shakespeares will always be done with care because they are so well known, but plays are also edited differently, as they are a different type of writing.

It is better for it to be edited and becoem understandable, and so allow people to enjoy the work, than to insist on textual purity and put many people off right from the very start.

It is better for it to be edited and becoem understandable, and so allow people to enjoy the work, than to insist on textual purity and put many people off right from the very start.

The very point I was going to make. And as said above, it's not disrespectful if the point is to make sure the writing is understood. What if edith hadn't known about the different usage of 'pants'? She might have got a different perception of P in S.

Another tangent - I'm now curious to see if Lisanne Norman's writing changes while she's in the States, since she's originally from England. I know she was already 1/3 of the way through a book when she moved, so it might differ from the next two-thirds.

I had this thought because edith started a topic on Anne McCaffrey that got me thinking how it could apply to other authors. I made a connection between the two, which is not neccessarily a bad thing.

Tresa

__________________
Thinking, understanding, reasoning, willing, call not these
Soul! They are its actions, but they are not its essence.

Thanks, C_ris and Greenrider, I understand your point. The problem is that the suchlike value of textural accuracy, rather than purity, applies to many other writers both relatively well known, and relatively unknown.

And another point is that texts date from the time they are set. Take the development of 'wicked' in slang over the last decade or so. If we are to take that into account, how are we to reflect upon that in texts?

Quite probably, texts would change rapidly, and remain in such a flux that the original meaning would be lost forever.

An example, if I may, to illustrate the relationship between textural accuracy and authorial reception, if, unlike myself, you consider the place of the author as important. For decades, Verne has been seen in America as the writer of ripping yarns. Case in point is 20 000 Leagues. However, for decades the only translations have been incomplete. They have left out the scientific verisimilitude which Verne had built into the narrative, to make it more plausible. It is, that is, more than just a ripping yarn, but an important hybrid of the scientific romance and the scientific travelogue. This treatment is akin to a theoretical one of The Name of the Rose that pares away anything other than that that is encompassed within the framework of a murder mystery.

For a critic such as myself, the text is all important. We need the accurate text, because that is the foundation of our work. Since the only expression of an author's intentions are in the text itself, and likewise of the "author's" worldview (actually it is the text's worldview), then an inaccurate text distorts, and renders invalid any real close reading. It also distorts any stylistic analysis, and any conclusions derived from a stylistic analysis.

It destroys attempts to derive the meanings of words and concepts over time, and renders vain the concept of etymology.

Finally, the reader must make an effort to comprehend any text read. If we are to abdicate to reader laziness, make a miniseries, and leave the book to those prepared to put in the effort of understanding.

What you are reading into what I said is not what I meant. I meant that it should be adapated for modern readers. This does not mean followuing every flash gimmick used in language, but the basic language and grammatical structure which would make old texts readable by the modern man.

As a history student, I have read old books, and they are much much harder to use and understand. The use of grammar and words is totally different. But it is easier for a historian than a normal person to understand, as he or she will know about the differneces, and are reading for more than mere pleasure.

Of course there should ALWAYS be pure texts of old writings available, as some critics such as yourself will need, and for historical purposes. But that does not mean that ALL publication editions should be like that. Readers who read for enjoyment do not want to stumble over words and phrasings which mean nothing to them, and to make them do so would be completely counter-productive.

Whenever you read, you are making an attempt to understand and comprehend a text. But there is no need to make it harder than necessary. And plays such as Shakespeare's CANNOT be fully modernised because of their structure. No-one would suggest that such texts be edited to include the current 'in' words, but they should for release to the general reading public be edited as to make them palatable and understandable to the modern mind.

To suggest that ALL such texts should only be reproduced in their original, pure, form is a step towards literary elitism. And that would deprive many people of enjoyment and satisfaction.

I'll admit that I exaggerated for effect, C_ris, however, the simple point is that any change destroys the meaning inherent in the text. Updating the earlier 'making love' to 'flirting' changes the meaning, because there is never an exact correlation of both a word's denotation, its literal meaning, and its connotations, the constellation of associations that we place with that.

Let's look at Shakespeare's phrase "get thee to a nunnery". We know that it meant what we still call a nunnery. We also know that it was slang for a whorehouse. If it were to be updated, how are we to reflect the pun inherent in that phrase?

I'm not saying that we have to toil at every text. There is a point, for example, that every translation is a translation of its time, so that there is need, as languages develop, of updating certain books. But when it comes to the same language, our standards should be a textual accuracy of an intense caliber.

And my advocacy of a miniseries is a sound one. It allows scope for the fullest and most faithful of translations of a text, rather than for the perceived need to shoehorn them into a very circumscribed 1.5-2 hours. If there is too great a problem for readers to read back into the original, then let them have their translation, not so much into modernity as into a modern medium.

As for elitism, it is equally elitist to produce popular texts for the "less intellectual" and elitist texts for the more widely known. Perhaps more so, since the implications seeps through to other venues, so that, for example, any effort to make law, political debates, even art in general accessible to the masses is considered a waste of effort and taxpayers' money. We live with it still: consider the funding for opera and other elitist art forms, and the insistence that contemporary art be accessible only to an elite, and you will see a major problem that I have. Consider also a lot of contemporary poetry. While I may write some difficult material, I do so because what the poem demands can not be comprehended easily, but I value work that is exact, and which doesn't look down on my potential readership. I don't write to be popular, but neither do I write to be elitist; and this is reflected in part on the emphasis I have, creatively, upon genre, or 'low' literature.

Besides, intelligent literature is not like blockbuster cinema: there is always a degree of effort that must be placed into reading it, and a large part of the pleasure comes at the insights we gain through that effort.

I like reading old editions- it makes me feel a little big smug I'll admit when I can read something that my boyfriend (a history student) can't!-medieval things on chivalry for instance!
the only prob I have is different spellings cos it makes me double take at times-which is why I noticed the differences here! spelling causes more effort than old words!-note I have been reading adult books since primary school and I enjoy older stuff at times.

Of course editing will cause some changes in how the book is read, but the people who do edit such texts are also the people who UNDERSTAND them best - English Professors and the like.

Phrases such as Shakespeare's "get thee to a nunnery" as a pun for going to a whorehouse would be kept. But the pun would just have to be explained! Most edited versions of his texts - particuarly school versions - come with (often alternate) pages EXPLAINING the words used bcause they could not be removed and kep the integrity of the text alive.

Every translation is a translation of its time, in exactly the same way as Shakespeare's writing is of HIS time. I thionk that you would find that most translations are put into PLAIN English, without excessive carry-overs from society's momentary wordage.

The problem with what you are saying is that language changes very much over time - Shakespeare's English is not ours, Old English was not Shakespeare's, and our English will not be that of our descendants in a few centuries. What you are advocating is similar to saying that the works of Rousseau should only be read in French, that works of Marx should only be read in German, etc etc!

The problem with what you say about elitism is that you have misunderstood my point - reproducing ONLY 'pure' texts would deprive people who do not WANT to struggle through tons of complicated and old word use and grammar, but want to read and enjoy a classic play or story. There is really little call for completely pure texts of the Shakespearian era because of their form of English. Plays were written for ENJOYMENT. They CANNOT be enjoyed unless they are made readable. This does not mean dumbing them down. But translating the text into a form more easily digested by ANYONE.

There is always a degree of effort put into reading ANY form of literasature - and at no point have I suggested that the necessity of this be reduced. BUT making excessive effort a requirement through insisting on purity just drives many, many people away.

I haven't noticed her style of writing being more British or American... I've always just seen her style as 'hers'. I know what some of the dialogue sounds very Irish, but coming from an Irish character, that's to be expected. But the thing for which I am most grateful, is her spelling of words with the omission of U. I guess it's just because I was raised with this sort of spelling, but words like color, honor, valor etc. with the U included just drives me batty. And I know C_ris will come back and shove all of it in my face

nope! I am! sorry
I find the lack of u's a distraction as I double-take!
the main prob I have is that she varies the spellings! and it's now confusing me! I wrote honor rather than honour t'other day! my spelling's bad enough as it is!

The problem with what you are saying is that language changes very much over time - Shakespeare's English is not ours, Old English was not Shakespeare's, and our English will not be that of our descendants in a few centuries. What you are advocating is similar to saying that the works of Rousseau should only be read in French, that works of Marx should only be read in German, etc etc!

Not quite.

We should read, for example, Langland or Chaucer in his English, yes (to choose an extreme), however, that does not preclude the use of glosses and other aids for the lay reader I also raised the possibility of adaptions, no? It is eminently, and no doubt would be enjoyably, possible to adapt Chaucer into prose, give it a bit of a fantasy twist, and have that.

As for Rousseau, I did admit the place of translations, into English. But if the French were to read the texts, they should read them in Rousseau's French, not their own version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_ris

The problem with what you say about elitism is that you have misunderstood my point - reproducing ONLY 'pure' texts would deprive people who do not WANT to struggle through tons of complicated and old word use and grammar, but want to read and enjoy a classic play or story. There is really little call for completely pure texts of the Shakespearian era because of their form of English. Plays were written for ENJOYMENT. They CANNOT be enjoyed unless they are made readable. This does not mean dumbing them down. But translating the text into a form more easily digested by ANYONE.

Then answer is not updating the work, but adapting the work. Consider the recent series of adaptations from Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales. You will notice that the settings, and situations have been contemporised, for example, and it is accessible to less determined readers than myself.

If we look at Shakespeare's contemporaries, their material is easily enjoyable as is. I quite enjoy Marlowe, for example, having no problem with his work, and The Revenger's Tragedy is a ripping read. However, in contemporary performances aspects of the production other than the words can, and often are, updated to prove more appealing and accessible. See, for example, many current productions of the Ring cycle, or Luhrmann's adaptation of Romeo & Juliet.

I have nothing against adaptation; I encourage it. But the original text must stand as it is, and should be approached as it is.

I haven't noticed her style of writing being more British or American... I've always just seen her style as 'hers'. I know what some of the dialogue sounds very Irish, but coming from an Irish character, that's to be expected. But the thing for which I am most grateful, is her spelling of words with the omission of U. I guess it's just because I was raised with this sort of spelling, but words like color, honor, valor etc. with the U included just drives me batty. And I know C_ris will come back and shove all of it in my face

As incorrect as the omission of the u's are ( ) it proves my point! I find it much harder to read WITHOUT the u's, and you find it harder with. Hence the reason for editing is to ensure that enjoyment can be gained from reading without the complications caused by having to interpret more language than necessary.